Advertisement

Is Generative Theory Misleading for Music Theory?

  • Rafael Barbosa
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 943)

Abstract

During the decade of the 1960s linguistics entered what can be seen as a paradigm shift following Thomas Kuhn’s theory of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). As a result, the discipline steps out of the Cartesian dualism between body and mind. During the 80th’s analytical musicology was related to the methodological approach of transformational grammars, the best known example being the Generative Theory of Tonal Music (Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983). For musicologist, the motivation to adopt this position is naturally nurtured by the work of Heinrich Schenker (Der Freier Satz 1935) in which, as in transformational grammar, a hierarchy of layers going from the actual piece of music to its Ursatz (Kernel) is proposed. The hypothesis developed in this article is that the analytical musicology, despite the efforts to link it with modern linguistics, has not yet stepped into the new scientific paradigm led by cognitive sciences. The reason for this is that musicology has not yet adopted a redefinition of its object of study from a non-dualistic and transdisciplinary perspective. With the development of experimental aesthetics, the ontological gap between the object of musicology and that of the scientific approach to music has been growing larger. As a result, if the study of aesthetic meaning in music has become possible today, it seems to be inconsistent with the traditional reductionist methods of analytical musicology, from which the analogy with transformational grammar rely upon.

Keywords

Musicology Music analysis Scientific aesthetics Generative theory Epistemology Paradigm shift 

References

  1. 1.
    Deliège, C.: Fondements de la musique tonale. Lattès, Paris (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schenker, H.: Free Composition, 2nd edn. (trans: Oster, E.) Longman, New York (1979). (original from 1935)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Virués-Ortega, J.: The Case Against B. F. Skinner 45 years Later: An Encounter with N. Chomsky. In: The Behavior Analyst, vol. 29, pp. 243–251 (2006). p. 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhn, T.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 23. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delalande, F.: Analyser la musique, pourquoi, comment?. INA, Paris (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Helmholtz, H.: On the Sensation of Tone as Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music. éd. and trad. A. J. Ellis, New York, Dover, New York, p. 6 (1954)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francès, R.: La perception de la musique. Vrin, Paris (1958)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berlyne, D. (ed.): Studies in Experimental Aesthetics: A Step Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington (1974)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morin, E.: Introduction à la pensée complexe. Seuil, Paris (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rohrmeier, M., Rebuschat, P.: Implicit learning and acquisition of Music. TopiCS 4, 525–553 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Granot, R., Jacoby, N.: Musically Puzzling I: Sensitivity to Overall Structure in the Sonata Form? Musicae Scientiae 15(3), 365–386 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tillmann, B., Bigand, E.: Global context effect in normal and scrambled musical sequences. J. Exp. Psychol. 27(5), 1185–1196 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Imberty, M., Maya, G. (eds.): Temps, geste et musicalité. L’harmattan, Paris (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bent, I.: Analysis. Macmillan, London (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rameau, J.-P.: Démonstration du principe de l’harmonie, p. viii. Durant-Pissot, Paris (1750)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boulez, P.: Jalons, Pour une décennie, p. 34. Christian Bourgois, Paris (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cook, N.: Music Imagination and Culture, p. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lorenz, K.: Behind the Mirror: A Search for a Natural History of Human Knowledge, p. 49. Methuen, London (1977)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    This assumption is made by Jean-Claude Risset, in the forword to: Auriol, Berdard: La clef des sons. Erès, Toulouse (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackendoff, R., Lerdahl, F.: The capacity for music: what is it, and what’s special about it? In: Cognition, no. 100, pp. 33–72 (2006). p. 55Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chomsky, N.: Language and Mind, 3rd edn, p. 25. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Darmesteter, A.: La vie des mots. Delagrave, Paris (1887)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reber, A.: Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Imberty, M.: L’aquisition de structures tonales chez l’enfant. Klincksieck, Paris (1969)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bigand, E., Charles, D.: L’apprentissage implicite de la musique occidentale. In: Kolinsky, R., Morais, J., Peretz, I. (eds.) Musique, Langage, Emotion: une approche neuro-cognitive. Presse Universitaire de Renne, Renne (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rohrmeier, M., Cross, I.: Tacit tonality: implicit learning of context-free harmonic structures. In: Proceedings of the 7th Trennial Conference of the ESCOM, pp. 443–452 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peretz, I.: The nature of music from a biological perspective. In: Elsevier Cognition, no. 100, pp. 1–32 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bosseur, J.-Y.: Du son au signe. Alternatives, Paris (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ball, P.: The Music Instinct, How Music Works and Why We Can’t Do Without It. Vintage, London (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sloboda, J.: The Musical Mind. The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CTEL, Côte d’Azur UniversityNiceFrance

Personalised recommendations